Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

3736

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
In this rule, the comments have been organized alphabetically by topic. The topics include:
Adjusted gross income AGI
waivers;
Alternative funding arrangements AFA;
Availability of program funding APF;
Easements;
Eligibility;
Funding pools;
Partner contributions;
Program administration;
Program contracts;
Programmatic partnership agreements;
Proposals;
RCPP activity types;
Renewals; and Supplemental agreements.
Adjusted Gross Income Waivers Comment: NRCS received comment expressing concern about reporting requirements necessary to receive an AGI eligibility determination from the Farm Service Agency FSA. Comment also expressed concern that the AGI
waiver process may harm the ability of small farms to receive conservation assistance and suggested adding more detail on the process and criteria for granting AGI waivers.
Response: AGI eligibility determination processes are not within the purview of NRCS or this rulemaking. However, NRCS recently published a National Bulletin NB 440
2026 which indicated that an RCPP
lead partner may request a waiver of the applicability of AGI at the RCPP project level during the initial Partnership Project Agreement PPA negotiation only. If granted, producers participating in RCPP through individual contracts or agreements will not be required to file AGI paperwork or have AGI
determinations made by FSA. If the RCPP lead partner does not request or receive a project-level waiver of the applicability of AGI, a producer may seek a waiver of the AGI limitation upon receiving an AGI determination. No changes are made in the final rule in response to this issue.
Alternative Funding Arrangements Comment: NRCS received comment requesting clarification that NRCS
retains administrative responsibility for conservation compliance, AGI, and payment limitation determinations, tenant rights, producer appeals, civil rights, and other similar responsibilities.
Additionally, comment requested that NRCS:
Remove the parenthetical about roads, dams, and irrigation facilities
VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:59 Jan 14, 2021

Jkt 253001

used to describe the types of infrastructure upon which an AFA
could focus;
Provide guidance on AFA goals;
Only use AFAs in limited circumstances and apply stringent criteria;
Support AFA irrigation projects and provide incentives for projects that would benefit fish and other aquatic species, particularly in overallocated basins;
Administer AFA projects through grant agreements; and Expand the indirect costs eligible for reimbursement under AFA projects.
Response: NRCS will define responsibilities in the APF
announcements and AFA partnership agreements, while still maintaining flexibility. NRCS will identify which responsibilities must remain with NRCS.
This final rule removes the parenthetical from 1464.25. RCPP
infrastructure projects relate to conservation activities that significantly address resource concerns but require greater investment than a single producer can make. NRCSs goal for AFA projects is to fund proposals that are consistent with RCPP purposes but are more effectively and efficiently carried out through lead partner efforts than through NRCSs conservation delivery system. AFA criteria are published as part of funding announcements when AFA funding is made available. AFAs are programmatic instruments that provide NRCS with the ability to balance the flexibility of grants or other agreement mechanisms with statutorily mandated responsibilities regarding NRCS roles. For all RCPP projects, including AFAs, the statutory limitation on administrative costs prohibits use of RCPP funding for a partners indirect costs. Other than removing the parenthetical noted above, there are no other changes made in the final rule in response to this issue.
Availability of Program Funding APF
Comment: NRCS received comment expressing support for the existing APF
and requesting that NRCS:
Clarify its intent to cover project management costs;
Provide written feedback for projects that are not selected; and Follow procedures of lead public entities when possible to promote efficiency.
Comment also included request for additional funding and flexibility for TA, including TA-only projects or projects focused on conservation planning.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Response: RCPP projects are collaborative, and NRCS works with each partner to develop procedural flexibility to help deliver conservation assistance effectively in the project area.
While partners provide significant contribution to project costs, NRCS
focuses on the technical and financial resources necessary to implement conservation activities and covers much of the project costs. For projects that are not selected, NRCS provides feedback to partners to help them develop more competitive proposals for future submission. NRCS strongly supports conservation planning and technical assistance delivery in its program implementation efforts, including RCPP, and selects proposals that most effectively delivery conservation outcomes. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
With respect to TA-only type projects, the Farm Bill makes clear that all RCPP
projects are intended to generate conservation benefits and report on conservation outcomes, therefore, RCPP
should prioritize on-the-ground conservation activities plus the TA
required to get that conservation on the ground. NRCS has an extensive Conservation Technical Assistance program that provides such support to its partners.
Easements Buy-Protect-Sell BPS Transactions Comment: NRCS received comment related to BPS easement transactions, including support for the availability of BPS transactions under RCPP and requesting the extension of such flexibility to U.S.-held easements.
Comment also:
a Recommended that NRCS consider as eligible BPS projects that encompass land purchased on an interim basis by State or county governments to improve land access by Historically Underserved HU producers;
b Addressed easement deed terms, recommending that NRCS make the minimum deed terms available as soon as possible and provide full flexibility in the use of entity-written deed terms;
and c Recommended that the entity match follow ACEPALE flexibility, which allows a landowners donation of easement value to constitute all of the nonfederal match requirements.
Response: Based on the ACEP
definition, BPS transactions are unique transactions that require the transfer of an easement to an eligible entity and do not include the United States as the ultimate easement holder. ACEP land eligibility is limited to private and
E:FRFM15JAR1.SGM

15JAR1